Flight Safety Information
May 31, 2011 - No. 110
In This Issue
Fire erupts on Delta jet
Air France crash calls for better pilot training, experts say
75 bodies recovered from Air France crash after 2 years
Gulfstream's G650 back in the air
Pilot error behind CAL 747 tailstrike incident
Criticism of State-Owned Air India Grows
Fire erupts on Delta jet
A Delta Air Lines McDonnell Douglas MD-88 operating as Flight DL 2284 from Pittsburgh
International Airport (PIT) to Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL)
caught fire in a right rear section of the aircraft after landing on Saturday, May 28,
2011 at 4:14 p.m. EDT, as reported by the Mason County Daily News, LA Late, Fox
News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, KLPW, UPI, CBS News, and other media sources on
Sunday, May 29, 2011.
A billowing cloud of black smoke could be seen trailing the aircraft as it traveled along
the runway, as seen in the attached video clip and slide show which accompany this
report.
All 43 passengers and 5 crew members were evacuated safely from the plane through
a rear emergency exit. It was reported that 4 of the passengers suffered minor
injuries while leaving the aircraft, and were treated by first responders at the scene.
All were transported by bus to the airport terminal.
Some conflicting information remains over the cause of the fire. According to Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) spokesman Kathleen Bergen, the MD-88 jet suffered
either a blown tire, a locked-up brake, or perhaps both events, which resulted in a fire
erupting after the aircraft landed.
Another report indicated that the fire had spread to the landing gear and the right rear
engine. Emergency crews quickly extinguished the flames with foam spray.
http://www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/fire-erupts-on-delta-jet
Back to Top
Air France crash calls for better pilot training, experts say
By Alan Levin, USA TODAY
As Air France Flight 447 plunged in the darkness two years ago, its pilots had ample
opportunities to save the jet. Instead, as has happened repeatedly on airliners around
the world, they exacerbated the problem, according to preliminary information
released by French investigators.
The Air France disaster, which killed 228 people on their way from Brazil to France on
June 1, 2009, is the latest example - and one of the most deadly - of the biggest killer
in aviation: a plane going out of control.
The latest information in the Air France case, released Friday by French investigators,
is spurring renewed calls for better pilot training and other measures.
"If this was a technical problem (with the jet), we'd be saying we need to fix this," says
John Cox, a former airline pilot and safety consultant who has written on loss of control
for the British Royal Aeronautical Society. "There have been those of us in the industry
that have been arguing for this for decades."
What is needed is better training so pilots are not as startled and confused during
emergencies, and better tools to warn them when their planes are about to go out of
control, the experts say.
Plummet from the sky
The French government's preliminary report describes what happened:
The Air France jet's 7-mile plunge into the Atlantic Ocean began suddenly when the
jet's instruments went haywire. Ice had blocked the jet's speed sensors; the pilots
could not tell how fast they were going. Warnings and alerts sounded almost
simultaneously.
In response, the pilots made a series of mistakes, according to the French Bureau
d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses, the agency that investigates aviation accidents.
Instead of flying level while they diagnosed the problem, one of the pilots climbed
steeply, which caused a loss of speed. Then the aggressive nose-up pitch of the plane
and the slower speed caused air to stop flowing smoothly over the wings, triggering a
loss of lift and a rapid descent.
They had entered an aerodynamic stall - which has nothing to do with the engines,
which operated normally - meaning the wings could no longer keep the plane aloft.
Once a plane is stalled, the correct response is to lower the nose and increase speed.
For nearly the entire 3½ minutes before they crashed into the ocean, the pilots did the
opposite, holding the Airbus A330's joystick back to lift the nose.
Although the response was improper, it would be wrong to simply blame the pilots
without looking at how well they were prepared for the emergency and whether the
information they received could have confused them, says Michael Barr, an instructor
at the University of Southern California's Aviation Safety and Security Program.
"They're sitting there happy, the autopilot is on," Barr says. "Next thing you know,
lights are flashing, warning horns are on. There were probably 10 warnings or
messages coming to the crew at the same time."
Similar miscalculations and miscues have been common in fatal accidents:
·In the Colgan Air crash Feb. 12, 2009, near Buffalo that killed 50 people, the captain
overreacted to a warning that the Bombardier Q400 turboprop had gotten too slow and
yanked the nose of the plane upward, the National Transportation Safety Board found.
If he had pushed the nose down, the board said, he might have saved the plane.
·On Aug. 16, 2005, a West Caribbean Airways Boeing MD-82 crashed in Venezuela,
killing all 160 people aboard, after the jet stalled at 33,000 feet. The Venezuelan
government blamed the pilots for failing to recognize that they were in a stall during a
3½-minute plunge, despite alerts from the automatic stall warning system.
·On Oct. 14, 2004, a Pinnacle Airlines jet crashed near Jefferson City, Mo., after the
pilots stalled the Bombardier CRJ-200 at a high altitude, the NTSB found. Both pilots
died; no passengers were aboard.
Similar accidents killed 1,848 people in the 10 years ending in 2009, according to jet
manufacturer Boeing.
Limitations of human brain
It may not be possible to prevent all such accidents.
Corporate pilot Patrick Veillette, who is writing a paper on the subject for the
International Society of Air Safety Investigators, says there is evidence to suggest that
the human brain cannot grasp what is going on in the most severe emergencies.
Still, Cox and others say stall training has been lacking for decades.
Newer flight simulators can better teach airline pilots how planes respond in stalls, and
their use should be dramatically increased, they say.
Responding in part to the Buffalo crash, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration has
proposed improving pilot training.
"If we're going to make sizable improvements in aviation safety, we need to deal with
upset recovery," Cox says. "That's where the risk is."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-05-30-training-air-france-crash_n.htm
Back to Top
75 bodies recovered from Air France crash after 2 years
Paris (CNN) -- Seventy-five bodies have been recovered from the wreckage of an Air
France plane that crashed off the coast of Brazil two years ago, more than doubling
the number of remains that have been found, the vice-president of the French victims'
association told CNN Tuesday.
The remains have not yet been identified, Robert Soulas said.
Air France 447 plunged into the Atlantic Ocean on June 1, 2009, killing all 228 people
aboard. The bulk of the wreckage was found this year after a search by robot
submarines of an underwater mountain range.
Many bodies were still in the fuselage, investigators said at the time. Only about 50
bodies were recovered in the days following the crash.
Soulas got the news from a French government liaison appointed to deal with families
of victims, he said.
"Personally, I would have preferred to leave the bodies of our loved ones on the
seafloor," he added, repeating his long-held view.
Back to Top
Gulfstream's G650 back in the air
Testing resumes less than two months after crash grounded business jet
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. today resumed flight testing of its new ultra-large cabin,
ultra-long range G650 aircraft, which it had temporarily suspended after an accident in
April. To date, the G650 flight-test program has accumulated 1,560 flight hours on 470
flights. Gulfstream anticipates receiving FAA certification of the aircraft in 2011 and
delivering the first aircraft to customers in 2012, as originally planned at the aircraft's
public launch in 2008.
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. has resumed the G650 flight-test program, following a
temporary suspension of flying after an April 2 crash.
The first flight since the crash took place was Saturday, with Serial No. 6001 flying for
one hour and 39 minutes. The crew included senior experimental test pilots Jake
Howard and Tom Horne and flight test engineer Bill Osborne.
"We have conducted all the necessary reviews to assure ourselves that we can safely
resume the flight-test program at this point," said Pres Henne, senior vice president for
programs, engineering and test at Gulfstream.
The second plane in the G650 test program, Serial No. 6002, crashed during takeoff
exercises in Roswell, N.M., on April 2, killing all four people on board.
In a preliminary report posted several days later, the National Transportation Safety
Board said the aircraft "was performing a takeoff with a simulated engine failure to
determine takeoff distance requirements at minimum flap setting" when the crash
occurred.
Immediately following the crash, Gulfstream elected to temporarily suspend the flight
activities of its four remaining G650 flight-test aircraft as the NTSB, the Federal
Aviation Administration, the company and suppliers work together to analyze the
crash.
Introduced in 2008, the G650 is Gulfstream's longest-range, highest-speed, largest-
cabin jet to date and is capable of flying just shy of the speed of sound. Even though
the luxury jet has not been approved to go to market, in April, Gulfstream had about
200 firm orders for the G650, which carries a price tag of $64.5 million. There is a
five-year waiting period for the plane.
"We have worked closely with the Federal Aviation Administration in this process and
received the agency's concurrence to resume flight testing," Henne said. "It is our
responsibility to move forward with the flight-test program, and we will do so in a safe
and prudent manner. The G650 will enter service as the flagship of our product line,
where it will represent the very best in business aviation technology."
To date, the G650 flight-test program has accomplished
470 flights, accumulating 1,560 hours toward the estimated 2,200 hours required for
certification.
Gulfstream resumed flying with the four remaining flight-test aircraft. The company still
anticipates certification in 2011, with service entry in 2012, as was originally planned at
the aircraft's public launch in 2008.
In November, Gulfstream announced a $500 million, seven-year expansion plan
expected to result in 1,000 new jobs at its Savannah headquarters. Plans call for
Gulfstream to build new facilities on an 88-acre tract in the northwest quadrant of the
Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport and to renovate several existing facilities at
its main campus off Gulfstream Road.
About 5,500 people work at Gulfstream's Savannah facility. The company reported
$5.2 billion in revenue last year.
http://savannahnow.com/news/2011-05-28/gulfstreams-g650-back-air
Back to Top
Pilot error behind CAL 747 tailstrike incident
Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council has recommended for China Airlines (CAL) to improve
and review its pilot training, following an investigation into a tailstrike incident involving
a CAL Boeing 747-400 in 2010.
Pilot error was found to be the cause behind the incident, which took place at
Anchorage on 4 March 2010. During take-off roll, the pilot received a stick shaker
warning, indicating that the aircraft was flying at an airspeed which was too low to
sustain lift.
The 747 continued on its flight to Taipei Taoyuan airport. After landing, inspections of
the aircraft found that the belly suffered "substantial damage", said the council.
In a report on the incident, the council said that the pilot had entered the incorrect
gross weight value before the flight, resulting in a lower speed than required and the
aircraft's belly making contact with the runway during take-off.
While investigations found that the flight crew had sufficient rest hours required by the
airline and Taiwan's civil aviation authority's regulations, pilot fatigue was identified as
a contributing factor to the incident, said the council.
In its safety recommendations, the council has advised CAL to enhance its flight
operations training and ensure that steps are in place for flight crew to verify input
values before take-off.
It also recommended for the airline to pay greater awareness to fatigue management
and to strengthen communication between pilots.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
Back to Top
Criticism of State-Owned Air India Grows
By HEATHER TIMMONS
NEW DELHI - When Bob Haygooni paid a midflight visit to a cockpit at his new
employer, Air India, he was shocked. The pilots, he said, had completely covered the
windows with newspaper to keep out the sun.
"All you had in the cockpit was this yellowish glow, as the light permeated the
newspaper," Mr. Haygooni recalled, saying it was a visibility hazard he had never seen
before in 30 years of flying.
But "this was a normal thing at Air India," said Mr. Haygooni, a former United Airlines
pilot who flew for the Indian airline for 16 months. In April 2010, however, he decided
that the paycheck was not worth his concerns over what he considered the
government's haphazard approach to running its state-owned airline.
Interviews with more than a dozen experienced pilots hired in the last three years by
Air India to work new international routes describe an airline with problems. But theirs
are not the only complaints.
Passengers have abandoned Air India in droves, shunning the airline because of its
reputation for poor customer service and late flights.
Formerly this nation's monopoly carrier, Air India has been surpassed by three
commercial Indian airlines - Jet Airways, Kingfisher and IndiGo - among those that
have sprung up since India deregulated the domestic industry nearly two decades ago.
Air India now has less than 15 percent of India's domestic air travel market, with many
empty seats on the flights that do take off.
As a result, Air India lost more than $1 billion in taxpayer money in the last fiscal year.
And now there is a growing public clamor for the government to get out of the airline
business.
"Instead of throwing good money after bad, the time has come to stand up and say:
yes, Air India must be shut down," The Indian Express newspaper said in an editorial
earlier this month. While few government airlines in the developing world have stellar
reputations, the Center for Asia Pacific Aviation, a research group in Sydney, Australia,
singled out Air India as an example of government mismanagement.
"There are other state-owned airlines in other emerging-market countries that have
similar problems, but I can't think of one as bad as Air India," said Peter Harbison, the
center's executive chairman.
Well-run state airlines tend to be a product of "enlightened and intelligent leadership,"
Mr. Harbison said.
He cited Indonesia's national carrier, Garuda, which once was an airline with heavy
debts and a fleet of unsafe old planes that regulators in Europe refused to let land
there. But under a businessman, Emirsyah Satar, who was named chief executive in
2005, Garuda Indonesia has been transformed into a profitable company that raised
$350 million in a public offering this year.
Spokesmen for Air India defend the airline as safe and say it is working to correct its
problems.
And the nation's new civil aviation minister, Vayalar Ravi, vowed in an interview
Wednesday not to close or sell the airline. "There is no question of Air India being shut
or privatized," he said. He said vested interests who "want to exploit the people for
their own profit" were behind suggestions that India's government give the airline up.
Still, Mr. Ravi said the airline had been mismanaged in the past - including the merging
in 2007 of India's domestic and international state-run airlines. "Nothing positive came
out of the merger," he said, and Air India has bought too many planes.
But the airline does "not make any compromises with maintenance and security," Mr.
Ravi said.
Air India's image was not helped by a recent 10-day pilots' strike over salaries. It
ended with a government pledge to raise pay - but not before the work stoppage had
caused cancellation of nearly 1,500 flights and added almost $50 million to Air India's
mounting losses.
Hoping to win back customers, Air India is slashing fares and planning to expand, even
though it loses money on 95 percent of its flights. Analysts say the prospect of a fare
war threatens to destabilize the entire Indian airline industry, and to erase the previous
predictions by private carriers of profits this year.
Even some once-loyal customers are giving up on Air India. "I think all Indians should
just boycott the airline," said Harjiv Singh, co-founder of Gutenberg Communications,
a public relations company with offices in New York and Delhi.
Mr. Singh said he used to fly Air India's business class regularly. But now he flies
Continental's direct flight to Newark, or one of a host of European carriers that stop in
Europe before going on to New York.
Even inside the company, some executives are quietly calling for the end of
government control. But Air India is popular with India's central government because
ministers and politicians can demand routes to connect their home states with the
capital, New Delhi, even if they lose money.
"I feel like a woman with 1,000 husbands," one male Air India executive complained,
referring to the constant demands from government officials.
As in many other emerging-market countries, India had a severe pilot shortage about
five years ago, as the number of passengers and airlines grew faster than the country
could churn out new pilots. Airlines here responded to the pilot shortage by hiring
expatriates, including hundreds from the United States, where - until the rules changed
in 2007 - commercial pilots were forced to retire at age 60. In India, as most
everywhere else, the retirement age has long been 65.
For many of those who joined Air India, the culture clash has been severe. Dozens left
before their three-year contracts expired. Of the 186 foreign pilots hired since April
2007, Air India has just 36 left, the company said.
Pilots interviewed for this article expressed safety concerns about basic operations at
Air India - particularly its training procedures, which many said were not adequate for
teaching the hundreds of new pilots the airline needs for its expansion. Some, like Mr.
Haygooni, spoke freely. Others insisted that their identities not be revealed because
they said the industry did not reward whistle-blowers.
Air India is "just so far behind the ball I don't know how they will ever catch up," said
Alexander Garmendia, 64, who joined Air India in 2009 after retiring from American
Airlines. He trained at Air India's headquarters in Mumbai for six weeks, but said he left
in part because he was worried about safety.
One safety concern noted by the interviewed pilots was that veteran Air India captains
often left cockpit doors unlocked - a practice most carriers around the world
abandoned after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. They also said captains tended
to leave the cabin during flights, leaving co-pilots alone for long periods. They said
pilots' smoking in cockpits was also common.
Mr. Rattan acknowledged that such things might occur, but "to say it was a trend
would be to stretch things too far."
Expatriate Air India pilots said they were most worried about an inadequate training
system that they said created co-pilots with excellent book knowledge but little real-life
flying experience.
"The biggest problem is if I have a heart attack, this kid isn't going to be able to get
the plane on the ground," said one current Air India pilot, who has more than 25 years
of commercial airline experience.
At Air India, some pilots say, young co-pilots get few hands-on opportunities in the
cockpit. Veteran captains handle the landings and takeoffs, often leaving co-pilots little
to do but operate the radio and fill out paperwork.
Most of the pilots interviewed for this article recalled incidents when they let young co-
pilots take the controls - a common practice in America and Europe to give
inexperienced pilots a chance to learn - but then had to seize back command of the
aircraft to prevent a disaster.
An Air India spokesman in Mumbai, K. Swaminathan, said in an e-mail that India's
airline regulator did allow assisted takeoffs and landings by co-pilots, when they were
flying with commanders who were authorized to do such training. But "as the airline is
in the midst of a fleet expansion, all commanders may not have the necessary
experience to allow co-pilots to conduct supervised takeoffs and landings," he said.
Air India was free of major accidents for a decade - until a May 2010 crash in
Mangalore that killed 158 people. The captain, a Serbian, came into the landing too
high, and did not abort it when he should have, the Indian government's investigation
report said.
The co-pilot, the report found, "failed to challenge any of the captain's errors."
Just four days later, Air India had another serious incident, when a co-pilot, while
adjusting his seat, accidentally knocked the controls off their settings as the captain
was heading for the bathroom. The plane dropped 7,000 feet before the captain could
return to the cockpit and right it.
A government investigation concluded the co-pilot "probably had no clue how to tackle
this kind of emergency."
Hari Kumar contributed reporting.
http://www.hindustan.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13122
Curt Lewis, P.E., CSP
CURT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES, LLC